Anthropologists can contribute to environmentalism in three ways. They study environmental problems within cultures "and the interpretation across cultural boundaries is recognized as a distinctive specialty of anthropologists" (Milton;1993;4). Since the boarders of culture do not bind specific environmental problems, but are shared by all, "a knowledge of how policies and their implementation privilege some cultural perspectives over others" is greatly important to understanding overall; along with how culture is effected by "domino" environmental disasters (Milton;1993;6). Also, if anthropologists study environmentalism itself, they place "systematic doubts" to "its fundamental principles, analysis can help to refine concepts, expose and eliminate contradictions and ultimately improve the credibility of environmentalist ideas" through intellectual development (Milton;1993;6). And as a third way, Anthropologists can contribute to environmentalism because they study human ecology ("culture is the mechanism through which human beings interact with or adapt to their environment") (Ingold;Milton;1993;4). Anthropology "has embraced divergent theoretical perspectives", which include ecological determinism and cultural determinism (Milton;1993;4). Anthropology can shed light on the different perspectives that cultures hold on the environment. By doing so, Anthropologists will discover the various views surrounding the quest for sustainable culture.

Cultural boundaries are variable and complex because culture is dynamic and undergoes many changes and variations with each new generation. It is not easily defined and is often quite problematic when it is. Cultural boundaries are complex because of human influences and interactions with many different views and beliefs. Anthropology as an academic discipline, faces many contradictions and controversies. "Public concerns are not constrained by disciplinary boundaries and the practical business of living in the world is not governed by the canon of theory" (Milton;1993;1). Anthropologists need to be open-minded and not go on "the assumption that different societies live in distinct worlds" (Milton;1993;5). As cultures change through time, their boarders shift and blur. Taking into consideration the changes and differences within one culture alone; they are often more so than between cultures.

One obvious advantage to taking action to improve the environment is to sustain all forms of life for all generations. Without concerned and caring human intervention to repair what damage was and is done by other human hands, the world would be destroyed shortly enough. Taking care of the environment is also advantageous to business, commerce, human and animal health, and preservations of certain life-style benefits. Anthropologists are concerned with "the possibility of their research contributing to cultural change" (Milton;1993;13). Anthropologists try to achieve cultural relativism but "it also had the effect of excluding moral judgments from the professional concerns of the discipline" (Milton;1993;7). Another problem with participating in improving the environment is objectivity. Anthropologists were "concerned to establish the scientific nature of their discipline" and felt being too involved would destroy their objectivity (Milton;1993;7). Yet, "different kinds of insight into environmentalism are gained by objectifying it in different ways; this is effectively what the different branches of social scientific theory (social, political, economic, cultural) do" (Milton;1993;7). "It is a truism that nothing evolves in isolation, and the specific character of anthropology's relationship with environmentalism can only emerge through interaction with other disciplines" (Milton;1993;2). Hopefully, when it comes to environmentalism, a field and subject which affect every culture, anthropologists will "regard a degree of social responsibility as an integral part of their discipline" (Milton;1993;7).

Discourse has several meanings from where it derived in social theory and linguistics (Milton;1993;8). Discourse is process and substance. Discourse "as process donates how social reality is constituted by the organization of knowledge in communication (Fairclough;Milton;1993;8). While, Discourse in substance is "a field of communication defined by its subject matter or the type of language used" (1993;8). Milton refers to discourse in environmentalism and anthropology as "an object of analysis"; a "communication about the environment but also the process whereby our understanding of the environment is constituted through such communication" (Milton;1993;8). This communication, inside of culture and discourse is complex, a trans-cultural discourse; "a distinctive product of contemporary communication systems" (1993;9). Milton also suggests that discourse "is the cultural process" but "discourse carries no connotations" of boundedness (1993;9).

(The following is adapted from several newspaper clippings, from the Times Herald, Pt. Huron and the Detroit News, all April 24-25): Earth Day began twenty-five years ago, when U.S. senator Gaylord Nelson a democrat from Wisconsin thought it up. He believed the environment needed political attention just like the Vietnam War. Earth Day began on April 22, 1970 as a small campaign out of Sen. Nelson's office in Washington D.C. About 20 million people contributed in some way. Many participated through college demonstrations or teachings in school. It really began as a grass roots organization. A national Earth Day celebration is held in Washington D.C. with many, many themes. Some special things are featured in Michigan. At the Seven Ponds Nature Center in Dryden, the concentration is on birds; their housing, and their place in ecology. Tree planting is also a big activity happening on Saturday. In Detroit, car batteries are being traded in for tree seedlings at dealerships. About ninety-five percent of used lead-acid batteries can be recycled. Also in Michigan, recycled clothing has become a booming part of the fashion industry. It is called "eco-fashion" and is made from recycled tires, organic material, discarded plastic soft drink bottles and reused fibers. It really is another way for recycling to become commercialized, yet it is beneficial to the environment. And the most unique thing to happen to Earth Day in twenty-five years: a Earth Day forum on the Internet. It is a global Earth Day forum, specifically to let Congress know what one thinks about environmental legislation. The purpose of this Earth Day and all others is to do something beneficial for the Earth and all its creatures. It is spreading environmental awareness, having fun doing it and connecting with different cultures around the world on a common note.

In Steven Yearly's chapter; Standing in for Nature; The Practicalities of Environmental Organizations' Use of Science, he argues that science and environmentalism are intertwined. "Environmental groups stand in for nature by claiming special competence in reading the signs vouchsafed by the natural world and by claiming to possess a stock of background knowledge about nature's needs" (Yearly;Milton;1993;59). These environmental groups can claim to read danger signs in nature because they rely on scientific knowledge. Groups such as Greenpeace, Earthwatch, RSNC and RSPB do not have extra funds to spend on their own private research, they have to spend their money on campaigns and reserves. They rely on other corporations and scientific communities to "to confront the negative effects on the environment", the formation of authentic, powerful trusts and a way to gain money through grants, fund-raisers and scientific entertainments (Yearly;Milton;1993;64). Yet, there are drawbacks to environmental groups depending on other sources of scientific knowledge. Many times, conservation of wildlife and nature is often not government priority, especially those scientifically backed. The government is simply in denial or ignores the problem. Sometimes, the money for environmental groups goes for public interest only; the "cuter" animal or a large disaster, that receives much news coverage. These are only a few problems that scientifically backed environmental programs face. Yet, the benefits outweigh the negatives of using scientific material to promote conservation. "In modern industrialized societies science is the only stand-in capable of commanding widespread legitimacy" (Yearly;Milton;1993;70). Many of the "green" groups need factual, strong, up-to-date reports on environmental issues not only to push their campaigns but to get something done that is important to them and to the world. So, it is to the environmental organizations benefit to consult "scientific expertise and use of scientific legitimations" (Yearly;Milton;1993;71). "The working of this stand-in can be most fully appreciated by social scientists", anthropologists especially (Yearly;Milton;1993;71).

The following is a summery of Robin Grove-White's chapter: "Environmentalism; A New Moral Discourse for Technological Society". Basically, the world of 1990's is one in which environmentalism is spoken among political, religious, social, scientific, technological and global groups. "We are in the throes of convulsive 'post-modern' social change on a number of fronts, with 'risk' a cultural theme of growing significance" (Grove-White;Milton;1993;18). It seems environmentalism will have some difficulty becoming a moral discourse because whence technology is taken into account "it omits to recognize key social and cultural dimensions" (1993;18). The chapter often refers to problems and events taken place in the United Kingdom. Grove-White speaks of "that rarefied zone where national leaders are the principal players" and the way environmentalism enters into politics. The environmental issues which receive the most attention are usually physical and noticeable effects. The government often finds non-governmental organizations and public opinions without scientific rationality. Thus, the government often needs to be pushed to accept matters important by these groups. Also within the orthodoxy, when science does not offer "objectively verifiable bodies of knowledge of nature's workings...science itself exists as a social construct, in which doctrines of 'objective' practice rest on a web of conventions, practices, understandings and 'negotiated' indeterminacies" (Wynne 1987;Milton;1993;22). Also, it is often investigated whether scientific proof is valid in the "real world". There is, according to the author, a perverse dominance of "interests" in environmental controversies. Also, the present orthodoxy, when dealing with the environment, is "inadequate ...in its superficial treatment of the mysteriousness and open-endedness of existence itself" (Grove-White;Milton;1993;23). It is difficult to define the future in "predictable" parameters. This has caused new religions to spring up such as new-age or green religiosity. The orthodox model, in other words, has "little to say about" grass-roots concerns, social authority of scientific knowledge, the human aspect of the environmental argument or religion "in ways which can command respect" (Grove-White;Milton;1993;25). The alternative is to view the environmental problematic as a more "cultural representation" and include human significance to it (1993;28). The "troubling paradox" is that groups and organizations of people accept the "significance of the crisis we call environmental" but "individually, relatively few people do anything significant about this recognition in their personal lives" (Grove-White;Milton;1993;29). The chapter concludes with questions, that if people do not act beyond the recognition of imminent environmental disasters then "we will continue down increasingly confusing, inequitable, and dangerous paths" (1993;29).

The following is a summery of Niels Einarsson's chapter: "All Animals are Equal But Some Are Cetaceans; Conservation and Culture Conflict". This chapter mainly deals with the problem in the example of fishermen and whaler's life-styles versus the conservation and benefit of preserving the whales as a species. Many whale species are endangered but whalers and fishermen do not find them special, but jeopardizing their livelihoods. The chapter seeks the question to whether whaling is morally wrong, for which their is much controversy and debate. Fishermen and whalers see the anti-whaling campaign against their rights to pursue a subsistence that has existed for generations in their families. Environmentalism views "humankind as part of nature and everything else in the universe is connected with everything else...Western culture, it seems, is now in a phase that might almost be called neototemistic" (Willis 1990;Einarsson;Milton;199378). If Western culture has this view, it places itself outside of nature, and that is how others can view whaling as a human right to subsistence, even if it pushes them to extinction. In conclusion, it depends on how resources, living or not, are viewed and that "cultural and political hegemony entails a responsibility", whether the resource is for subsistence, pleasure or conservation.

The following is a summery of Tanya M. Luhrmann's chapter: The Resurgence of Romanticism: Contemporary neopaganism, Feminist spirituality and the divinity of nature. This chapter deals with the use of a "Mother Earth" goddess and the reappearance of witchcraft, romantic beliefs and "a dreamy religious involvement with nature" (Luhrmann;Milton;1993;220). The chapter deals with neopaganism "the term in America and England to describe a romantic (19th century) attachment to nature in lieu of a more traditional religion" (1993;221). The idea of these alternative religions is to live in harmony with nature, to be a part of it, not above or separate from it. These "religions" are intense, imaginative, without restraints of a strict order, mysterious and embodies a deep spiritual experience combining old ways and new. A considerable amount of the chapter is devoted to speaking of the feminist goddess, who can be related to "the interconnectedness, the sense of our incorporation in to a web of natural objects", the giver and taker of life and of earth-centered ethos (Lhrumann;Milton;1993;224). Often times, a dark goddess is worshipped, one that can be more related to human emotions; pain, despair, displacement, hate, desire and fate. The dark goddess is often times affiliated to females alone, delineating their life cycles. Overall, neopagans believe "the natural landscape becomes a map for human feeling and aspiration, an environment for spiritual odyssey" (Lhurmann:Milton;1993;232). This practice incorporates humans position in the environment, in imaginative experiences, and "articulates life experience" while "giving meaning to the meaningless, even transforming violence into creativity" (1993;232). The chapter points out that alternative views, even those that follow a religious path can effect environmentalism and lend power to its purpose.

Starting with making a small difference, in a small town, even adds to helping the environment. After all, Earth Day began as grass roots, has spread to large city organizations, federal programs and now is world wide, linking people with a common concern. I think one of the considerable differences a person can make to the environment is first understanding how ecosystems, food webs, human beings and the balance of nature are all interconnected. The knowledge of ecology, environmentalism and anthropology combined does shed light onto the human position in the world, whether in harmony or in destruction. It is taking the responsibility to live within nature and not above it. If all people understood what pollution, deforestation, habitat destruction, mass killings, diseases and cancer did, not only to wildlife and plants but to human beings themselves; perhaps humans would change their ways. Change from conquering, destroying, exploiting and killing to a counterbalancing of behaviors between man, of a higher order and all other living creatures. Taking this a step further, adding doing to what one has learned and it will make all the difference between future generations surviving or not. Yet, learning, understanding and doing for the benefit of the environment, might not be enough. There are many philosophies, ideologies and perspectives that are obstacles to the ideal of environmental balance. The economic systems of many countries support waste and consumption and feel threatened by the environmentalist movement that takes away profit and growth. Many religions advocate in their practices man's superior position over the environment; it is a god-given right to control and exploit nature for humankind's benefit. Many political forms, also feel threatened by pro-environmental ideals, because it endangers their power positions within economic and social props. Socially, many people are not taught the basics of economics and how it all converts back to humans; food production, health, reproduction, living conditions, and survival. Some people will too, simply bask in their ignorance. There are always those foolish people who do not care all and refuse to see how they may be affected, Obviously, there is not getting around these types of people and beliefs against the entire worlds beneficial survival, but with enough people caring and contributing; the adversaries' destructiveness will be kept to a minimum. All little things contribute: recycling, composting, using the most fuel efficient methods, protecting fragile ecosystems, consuming less, polluting less, stopping harming chemical and material uses, eating green, respecting wildlife, cleaning up existing pollution, learning to respect the environment. And picturing yourself, a human, as a small part, within the whole world, within an ecosystem, as a sentient creature who, (beyond moral obligation, but as the responsibility as the highest order of life) must be accountable for all consequences of your actions. Those actions may lead to the undoing of all the world.